Comparative negligence is a legal principle in tort law that dictates how damages are awarded in negligence-based claims when the injured party is also partially at fault. Instead of a complete bar to recovery, comparative negligence seeks to apportion fault between the plaintiff and the defendant. This means that if you’ve been injured due to someone else’s negligence, but your own actions also contributed to the incident, you may still be able to recover damages, although the amount will be reduced proportionally to your degree of fault.
Within comparative negligence, different approaches exist across jurisdictions. One significant approach is Pure Comparative Negligence.
Understanding Pure Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence is the most lenient form of comparative fault from a plaintiff’s perspective. Under this rule, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be primarily responsible for their own injuries. The crucial aspect of pure comparative negligence is that recovery is reduced only by the percentage of the plaintiff’s fault.
Imagine a scenario where an accident occurs, and the court determines that the injured plaintiff is 80% at fault, while the defendant is 20% at fault. In a state following pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff is still entitled to recover 20% of their total damages. This holds true even if the plaintiff is found to be 99% at fault – they could theoretically still recover 1% of their damages, representing the portion of fault attributed to the defendant.
This principle stands in stark contrast to other negligence rules and provides the maximum opportunity for plaintiffs to receive compensation, regardless of their level of contribution to the injury. States like California, Florida, and New York are prominent examples of jurisdictions that adhere to the pure comparative negligence standard.
Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence
While pure comparative negligence allows for damage recovery at any level of plaintiff fault, modified comparative negligence introduces a threshold. Modified comparative negligence is further divided into two main types: the 50 percent bar rule and the 51 percent bar rule.
50 Percent Bar Rule
In states following the 50 percent bar rule of modified comparative negligence, a plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault for the incident. If the plaintiff’s fault is determined to be 49% or less, they can recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault.
51 Percent Bar Rule
The 51 percent bar rule is slightly stricter. Under this rule, a plaintiff is prohibited from recovering damages if they are found to be 51% or more at fault. Recovery is possible if the plaintiff’s fault is 50% or less, again with damages reduced proportionally to their fault.
Modified comparative negligence, in either form, represents a middle ground between pure comparative negligence and the much harsher doctrine of contributory negligence. The majority of states in the United States operate under some form of modified comparative negligence.
Pure Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is the most stringent legal standard regarding plaintiff fault. In jurisdictions that still follow contributory negligence, if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their injuries, they are completely barred from recovering any damages from the defendant.
This “all-or-nothing” approach can lead to very harsh outcomes for plaintiffs who may bear minimal responsibility for an accident but are denied any compensation due to even slight contributory negligence. Only a small number of jurisdictions, including Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, along with the District of Columbia, still adhere to contributory negligence.
Conclusion
Pure comparative negligence offers the most plaintiff-friendly approach within the spectrum of negligence laws. It ensures that injured parties can receive compensation even when partially at fault, with damages adjusted to reflect their degree of responsibility. Understanding pure comparative negligence is crucial, especially when navigating personal injury claims in states that have adopted this rule. While modified comparative negligence and contributory negligence present stricter limitations on recovery based on plaintiff fault, pure comparative negligence prioritizes proportionate responsibility and access to compensation, regardless of the extent of the plaintiff’s negligence.
